Another Failed EHR Implementation – Surprised? Not

Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as “doing the same thing but expecting a different result.”  And so it goes with another EHR implementation gone bad…

Electronic Medical Records and Higher Costs

Virtually every Electronic Medical Record (EMR) vendor claims their system will increase efficiencies.  However, a recent study by professors at Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business will “cast doubt on some of the savings” of these systems says Assistant Professor Michael Furukawa, one of the study’s authors.

“There’s a disconnect in the policy world that assumed that with all of the records moved into the computer system, nurses and other hospital personnel could spend less time running around looking for charts and that they would have more time to spend with patients,” says Associate Professor Raghu Santanam, another of the study’s authors. “While some documentation time was reduced, a lot of time at computers may have been added, especially at organizations just learning to implement the new technology in a likely transition period. Higher levels of nurse staffing were really needed.”

EHR Meaningful Use Criteria

Late last year (2009), CMS released the proposed Stage 1 criteria for Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records (EHR) for Eligible Professionals and Hospitals.  (A nice summary of the criteria prepared by my colleague, Jason Miller, is available here, as well as some other useful links)  A quick look at the criteria shows that many providers are probably already performing parts of many of the criteria.  This could be dangerous.

EHR & The Ghost of Technologies Past

“It’s like déjà-vu all over again” Yogi Berra famously once said, and yes, it is. We’ve been here before.  The promise of a new technology the will create so many efficiencies – too many to count.  It will make everyone’s life so much ‘easier’ and allow the organization to make unprecedented gains.